Talk:Terminology of homosexuality/Archive 1

Comment
I would like to rename this page "Terminology of homosexuality" and integrate into it much of the material on etymology and usage from the main Homosexuality page. Comments? Haiduc 04:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Poor/confusing title.  Separate page seems unnecessary.  Exploding Boy 16:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I forget what the original title was, but it was even worse. On the other hand, it goes against wikipedia practice to load down a main article with a great deal of detail, and material which gets too extensive is spun off routinely into its own article. Entire chapters could be written on this topic, making the main Homosexuality page more than top-heavy. Haiduc 00:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality an inaccurate term?
"The use of the word homosexual in describing individuals and same-sex relationships may also be inaccurate."

This is stated several times in this article and I honestly do not get it. The word "homosexual" means "of the same sex," so how is it not the same as "individuals and same-sex relationships?" What is meant by this? --208.54.94.81 14:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I think I get it now. Being in a homosexual relationship doesn't stop other people from being sexy if you look at them. Or something like that. The above post was mine from over a year ago. I didn't even read the article again and I figured it out lol. --24.165.225.41 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous or not?
The opening para says:

The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymous 1869 German pamphlet 143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuchs und seine Aufrechterhaltung als 152 des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund ("Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code and Its Maintenance as Paragraph 152 of the Draft of a Penal Code for the North German Confederation") written by Karl-Maria Kertbeny.

(my emphasis)

Which is it? --Skud 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Both. He published it anonymously. ntennis 14:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A bit outdated in most places, and offensive in others
This article uses terminology that hasn't been in widespread use in the gay community for ages, and tries to pass it off as current. Further, associating pederasty with homosexuality is offensive. Paedophilia has nothing in common with the GLBT community, and it never has, except in the twisted imaginations of those who look for an argument to base their irrational hatred upon. All in all, this article fails to inform, as the information it gives is outdated and/or inaccurate. This page should be deleted or cleaned up and renamed " Archaic terms from the gay lexicon that are no longer in use" Wandering Star 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to list an article for deletion, Articles for deletion explains the process. Personally, I think the article is useful, and I'd rather see it expanded than deleted. I'm struggling to understand your objection to the "history" section, which (naturally) is about terminology that was common in the past. Nearly half of the words in the article are outside of this section anyway.


 * As for pederasty, what you say is not entirely true. At one time, it was the standard English-language designation for male-male love, regardless of the relative ages of sexual partners. In addition, such "gay" luminaries as Oscar Wilde, André Gide, John Henry Mackay, and John Addington Symonds all practised and wrote primarily about love between adult men and male youths — Wilde himself was asked in court what he meant by "the love that dare not speak its name", and he replied "a great affection of an elder for a younger man". The word pedophilia is not in the article. ntennis 04:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This should probably be merged with Homosexuality. --24.165.225.41 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No room. Haiduc 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One term is constantly used but never explained
And that word is "sexual orientation"! This is a term of very recent coinage, which replaced "sexual preference" in the usage of activists for ideological reasons, but it is treated everywhere on wiki as if it is a neutral, dictionary term that has always existed! A section on "sexual orientation" that details the history of the term is badly needed!


 * A basic understanding of the concept of sexual orientation is assumed in discussions of topics of sexuality. It is a basic term, and while it obviously hasn't "always existed," I don't share your concern over its status as "a neutral, dictionary term".  A history of the term would be a nice addition to the sexual orientation article, but it seems you have an not-so-neutral agenda for how that would be written.  70.100.62.186 11:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of "homogenital"?
Does anybody know the exact origin of "homogenital"? It's used primarily by anti-gay Catholics, but also by some protestant groups. I suspect it was in some Catholic encyclicals in the 70s, because a FAQ on church doctrine by DignityUSA uses the word in responding to the official church position. But that's all I know for sure. Any clues? Thanks. DanB DanD 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fricatrice
I don't think this term was a homosexual term. It refers to sexual stimulation through rubbing, which can be done to women or men.--Syd Henderson 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Same gender loving
Should Same gender loving be merged to this article? It's a bit more than a dictionary definition, but seems short enough to fit here until it expands further.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  10:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Non controversial problem
The section "Homosexuality" in Terminology of homosexuality has a main that points to Homosexuality, and the Homosexuality article has a main which points to Terminology of homosexuality... I'm not sure how this should be resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Queer"
The term "queer" isn't a negative word anymore, and it can be used in a formal context. It can still be used in a negative sense, but it's being endorsed these days as an acceptable umbrella term. Does anyone think it should stay in the pejorative list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lambyte (talk • contribs) 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Schwul / schwül
I am not a native speaker of German, but I think that most people do not find a relationship between schwül (most commonly used to describe hot and humid weather) and schwul (gay). There may be an etymological link but, I think, there is not a link in modern usage. Thehalfone 12:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Slang sources
We have no sources for the slang terms. If we don't find some soon I propose we remove the lists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a shame to just cut the list, to which (ahem) I contributed a couple of terms a while back that I believe to be of encyclopedic interest (such as "femme damnée"). However, the list obviously contains a lot of juvenile humor as well ("anal mechanic" - can we call this coinage a form of OR?). I think the list could be useful for writers on language or culture, and would rather see it culled than cut out of hand.
 * Dybryd 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing removing everything, only the entries that aren't sourced. (Oh wait, that is everything). On what basis do you suggest culling? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's a question of sourcing what can be sourced and cutting what can't. I've put a notice up over at WP:LGBT, but it'll be something of a project. Maybe the list should be moved to a talk subpage until it's in better shape?
 * Dybryd 22:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've participated in a few lists of slang terms, and they tend to grow with dubious entries. While folks may say, "et's source this material", sources rarely get added. There are slang dictionaries, and probably guides to gay slang too, if someone wants to spend the time to find them. In the meantime, perhaps moving the list out of the article would keep it from gowing while we're lookig for sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm, love y'all but nonsense. The LGBT articles are vandalized everyday so simply removing a section for careful tending may sound like a good idea but the list will be recreated in its absence and then re-vandalized when it returns. I think it's makes more sense to simply start referencing every one. Between books, magazines and ref material it's hard to believe that every valid slur isn't in print. Target the worst section that needs help and ref each one (I'll even help) then once that list has been vetted change the section intro to state that these are sourced and additions with refs are welcome. Also consider adding hidden text as well to further curb non-sense term and inform newby editors to propose terms on talk page. Benjiboi 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's set a deadline of the end of the month. Unsourced slang entries after that will be removed to a subpage. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's make it a month rather than two weeks and let's also agree to do one a day or something equitable. If we get done earlier then so much the better. Benjiboi 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

London Slang and Slanguistics
Is there any reason these should be seen as reliable sources?P4k 04:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A source's reliability is tied to the subject and I didn't see any problem with them. Is there a reason to believe someone created an elaborate website just to introduce made-up terms? I'm also familiar with most of those slang terms and can assure of their usage even most of them presently. Benjiboi 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A source's reliability is not really tied to the subject that much; all sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and these websites don't. The London Slang site states " Most of the list was initially compiled from my own and friends knowledge and I have used other written sources to add to these. As time has gone on many of the entries have come from visitors to the site." Does that sound reliable to you?  Personal experience doesn't count for anything on Wikipedia as you probably already know.P4k 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree that a source's reliability isn't really tied to a source, that's why we don't reference nuclear scientists on gender issues, we tied them to are they a good source for the subject. None of the terms inclusion seems terribly controversial and if forced yet another slang dictionary will essentially verify - yep, used as a slang for gay men, etc. Are you interested in helping the article by finding references for other terms or do you have some other intention. I ask because I just got done referencing another list of several hundred items as it was all done because an editor didn't agree with the subject matter. Benjiboi 08:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't try to speculate on people's intentions. You can do whatever you want with this article, I just think that citing unreliable sources is much worse than citing none at all, and these can't be considered reliable (or "a good source for the subject").P4k 09:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't speculate on your intentions it's why I asked and stated why I had asked. Benjiboi 09:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this backs up that the website operator seems to have a respect for verifying content with actual books (mostly slang dictionaries) so it seems perhaps it's not just random words that anyone can add. If you feel any in particular need a second source I can tend to it after I save another article. Benjiboi 09:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Push beyond common terminology; more theory and history
I came across this article after searching and searching for something like it. I did not find it where I expected and hence I think this could be somewhat of a problem. I realize that the title of the page has changed, but the root of the problem might be found from such realizations or factors unto its development. It seems to me that much of this page was developed along the lines of common terms and phrases, whereas things like history, etymology and "labeling theory" and/or "deviancy theory" were added in as secondary interests, if at all. I would suggest start splitting this topic in two directions on what would be possibly two topic pages. I would keep this page, certainly, but drive it more towards the direction where it seems to be going and is most successful: common terms, phrases, slurs and so on. These seem to be words and concepts that are used in everyday language and conversation, which are useful for basic education, people learning English as a second language, or dare I say, people who want to teach or learn how to be "politically correct" or non-offensive. None of that is bad, but that is what we are doing here, it seems. The second topic or direction that I would like to see developed, is the ideas of etymology, history and the overall theoretical concepts dealing with labeling, deviancy and the more current phenomenon of self-concept and reclamation. These ideas are much more academic, but I have found like ideas on other pages already. In fact, it is where I was looking for this topic or idea, but was struggling to find it. As such, I was surprised to finally come across the topic for discussion, but found that for all its strengths, it seems somewhat lacking in some areas and approaches. Finally, I think discussion on other languages should only be included as they influence the English language. I would otherwise encourage the development of such discussions on other wikipedia topic pages, providing "see also" links to those topics from here. I think it would be better if this and like pages are more concise; as besides, this is not inclusive of all available languages and their slur words as seen on wikipedia. It currently includes some languages and oddly excludes others; therefore, it should include all that are known or none at all. I have found such terms and/or slur words on other topic pages that are not listed here, although the authors of this page have neglected to look them up. Foremost, why be redundant here on this topic page, when it is already being covered by the like topic "List of terms for gay in different languages". I can also find similar pages for each language, like Japanese, Spanish, Italian slur words and sexual phrases, etc. 69.109.208.103 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) DjZ

citations, oy!
A lot of the citations on this page need to be consolidated, and not separate cites for the same reference. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 05:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even of converted to Harvard format, which I don't recommend or support, each ref would still be there as we are pointing to multiple entries on each source ergo different webpages. I wouldn't support one general link to the main page as that's harder to verify. Benji boi 09:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kaliardá
Does anyone have any information on the etymology of the term Kaliardá (Καλιαρντά)? A similar surname (Καλιαρντάς) exists in the area around Melissourgoi but is this connected? My extent of knowledge on the subject is this:

131.155.68.156 (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ethnologue classifies Kaliardá as a variant of Romano-Greek
 * Romani is related to Hindi. Is the Hindi `Kali Yatra' (black journey) related?
 * Montoliu published a paper concluding it is not a gypsy language, but rather a jargon under homosexuals that incorporated gypsy elements because of male prostitution among gypsy communities
 * Two possible etymologies are from the French gaillard (meaning the same as the original meaning of the English word gay) or from a general Romany term meaning gypsy . Does anyone happen to know the Romany term that is referred to? Or have other information on the etymology? Perhaps from the Kalderash / Kalderaš (`cauldron makers')?
 * A small introduction on and glossary of Kaliardá, excerpt from

Unsourced foreign terms
The sections for all of the foreign languages are unsourced. Since this isn't a dictionary, I'm not sure why foreign terms are even included. In any case, whatever is here need to be verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

List of terms inclusion criteria
The lead of the article does not specify what the inclusion criteria of the terminology list itself should be. In order to meet the guidance of WP:Lists, the section needs to have its own lead section unambiguously explaining what criteria apply for inclusion. At the moment terms are being rejected if not in widespread usage (such as when the only sources put forward are one-off TV episodes) and adding clear criteria would avoid most argument. I suggest that inclusion should be on the basis of being available in published sources. With the prevalence of slang dictionaries for modern languages this should not be impossible and may eventually lead to the removal of some foreign language terms where there is no substantive source.—Ash (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Gynephilia???
Gynephilia cannot be a correct word. The root is 'gynaec-' or 'gynec-' (American spelling) as found in gynaecology. It should be 'gynaecophilia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.88.233 (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that you're right regarding the formation of the word, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Regardless, you're on the wrong Talk page: Androphilia and gynephilia would be the appropriate place to take your concerns. -- Irn (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Footnote #75 in Terminology of Homosexuality
Re Footnote #75 regarding the earliest unambiguous use of "gay" as a synonym for "homosexual": In the 1938 movie "Bringing up Baby" the character played by actor Cary Grant says, when caught by another man wearing female attire, "I've suddenly gone gay," or words to to that effect; but he definitely used the word "gay." I just saw the film tonight (Saturday 18 June 2011) on Turner Classic Movies. It seems that this usage of "gay" predates the 1940s by at least a few years. Gdthayer (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Edited: Substitute "Footnote" for "Note" Gdthayer (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing terms
I was working on a disambiguation page at Homosexual behavior, and I thought I was doing well, but someone reduced it to a redirect (to the first term listed below):
 * Homosexuality
 * Men who have sex with men
 * Same-sex sexual practices

I'm looking for an English word which encompasses male-male sexual activity and female-female sexual activity. Since I understand that Homosexuality is much more than just 'getting off' together, what term can we use for the sex part? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the ones that don't deal with humans. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about Homosexual sex acts (empty page) or Homosexual sex act (also an empty page) per this section heading: Anti-LGBT_rhetoric? I'm wondering if the terminological problem has to do with "baggage" stemming from anti-LGB advocacy.

In the straight world, the concept of sexual activity between members of the opposite sex does appear to be an discrete element. That is, "sex" can be distinguished from "love". Such a distinction in fact aids writers who wish to describe how sex and love relate, or to describe other aspects such as attraction and romance; the latter emphasizes emotion over libido.

I haven't gotten any replies, but I don't take this as a lack of interest. I'll go ahead and start making some (cautious) edits to the article, but I trust that those who are watching will revert or fix any errors I make. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Florence Tamagne has a fascinating and sensitive discussion of terminology in her book, A history of homosexuality in Europe: Berlin, London, Paris, 1919-1939, (pp. 4-6). It actually goes back to the mid-1800s, when describe word usage. Perhaps after studying this passage, we can apply her insights to the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Terminology of homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social22.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terminology of homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405231533/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/classical_myth%2C6.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/classical_myth%2C6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

History section needs work
The history section needs some reorganization to have some sort of natural sequence, perhaps by theme, or more likely, chronological. It also needs some sort of narrative to show how they're connected (if they are). In addition, there are several terms occupying entire sections that don't belong in the article that I plan to start boldly removing. Conversely, there are others, like invert, that are important, were once used universally in academia and literature, that get barely any mention at all. Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I just removed former history sub-section Androtrop and Gynäkotropin. These are neologisms that exist only in German, invented by one person and reported in one student's Master's thesis. The two terms have no attestations in Google books, neither in the English corpus, nor in the German corpus. They have three links in Google scholar, one is a 1997 Master's thesis by a German student, where on page 8, speaking of Kurt Hiller's discussion of terminology about and by homosexuals, she says,  and then goes on to quote him:""
 * There are already perfectly good words for these concepts both in English and German, namely androphilia/-phile/-philic and gynephilia/-phile/-philic&mdash;not that they are common, but they exist. How an entire section about two obscure German neologisms that are non-existent in English ever got into en-wiki is a mystery. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Removed section Urningtum, a neologism by Ulrichs which was a German-suffixed noun formation from his translation of (adj.) "Uranian". It never caught on in German. Urningtum would mean something like, "Uranianism", if such a word exists.  Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Reworking the lead
The lead is in need of some significant reorg and tightening up. For starters, I've redone the first sentence due to some outright mistaken assumptions. Let's recall that WP:LEAD says that the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. It goes on to say that the lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. That's not what the lead is now; much of it (currently four paragraphs) sounds like somebody riffing on their personal recollections, or dumping out random slang terms ("that way", "a bit funny", "on the bus", "batting for the other team", "a friend of Dorothy") not one of which is discussed in the body of the article; neither is there any discussion of whether these are "euphemisms" (as claimed) or slurs.

Much of the material currently in the lead doesn't belong there; that includes any material that is not already covered in greater detail in the body of the article. I plan to start moving material out of the lead, to an appropriate section in the body (if there is one), or create a new section for it, if there isn't. Anything moved down, will be summarized by a brief comment in the lead, if need be, according to its importance and due weight.

Once that is complete, that will probably leave a lead that is much shorter, and lacking completeness. In a second phase of the re-org, the lead will probably need to be expanded, to summarize portions of the body that currently aren't covered at all in the lead. But first things first: in phase one, I'll be moving lots of material out of the lead to the appropriate section, with little or no change to the actual wording, except to ensure smooth segues so it fits into the surrounding text. I welcome any comments or assistance. Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've taken a first crack at phase one. The lead is tighter (which is not to say it couldn't still be improved), and much stuff is moved out of the lead to the body (hopefully in a logical location; often tagged with cn since none of this stuff was sourced when it was in the lead). Also made some improvements to the body in passing, like adding a bunch of wiktionary links in strategic locations.  At this point, I'll take a break, and let others have a go, or leave feedback.  Hopefully it's better than it was.
 * I think the body could use a re-org, too, as the current sectioning structure makes little sense to me. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

First sentence: Wanted to offer further explanation about this change to the lead, which removed the article title and the bolding from the first sentence. The old lead sentence was awkward, constrained as it was with the attempt to force the article title into the sentence as its subject:"" However, since the article title is descriptive, per MOS:FIRST the title itself does not need to appear verbatim in the first sentence; and per MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD, it should not be bolded in that case. In its current incarnation, we have this:""I hope you agree that it flows better and reads more naturally this way. (I wouldn't be opposed to a completely different formulation, such as, "Many different terms have been used or proposed to describe homosexuality, since the emergence of the first terms in the mid-19th century."; I find that reads even better, but I was trying to make minimal changes at this point, until we get some feedback.) Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for proposed or any of the alterative titles, though current title not loved. Further discussion and subsequent new proposals are welcome. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Terminology of homosexuality → Terminology for homosexuality – Ethanpet113 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC) This article covers terminology for referring to homosexuals not terminology used by ("of") homosexuals.Ethanpet113 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Terms for homosexuality? I dunno, Terminology for homosexuality sounds kind of manual-like to me.    SITH   (talk)   23:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment/Suggestion - "Terminology of homosexuality" suggests to me a jargon used in gay culture. Aiming for WP:CONSISTENCY, of the two titles starting "Terminology for...", one (Terminology for the Description of Dynamics) is a proper name and the other a redirect for Glossary of Asteraceae-related terms. There seem these patterns (ignoring redirects):
 * "X terminology" (e.g. Military terminology, Kinship terminology)
 * "Glossary of X [terms]" (e.g Glossary of chess, Glossary of cricket terms)
 * "X (terminology)" (e.g. Macedonia (terminology), Turnip (terminology))
 * "Names of X" or "Names for X" (e.g. Names of China, Names of the days of the week, Names for India)
 * So how about Names for homosexuality (or "names of")? 62.165.227.157 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as is Alternatives are worse. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.